That picture is extremely magenta. You would need quite a lot of green tint to compensate.

that was not the question, Erik... of course I know that it is magenta and I know what raw converter has to do - my light, my gel, my camera... it is magenta on purpose... that is the light and the raw converter shall be able to WB it in no time, like SilkyPix does (click and done) or like RPP... and ACR can't... and Adobe DNG Profile editor, touted as "you can build your own profiles for a non standard light", can't build a profile for a non standard light... so the question is (about ACR) - why (I know why - they put a hard limit in what your can do through UI) ACR can't work with a quite good (raw data wise) raw file to get me a properly WB'd image... so what was the purpose of that ? yet again Adobe knows better what we need or it is internal deficiency of Adobe's approach to profiles/WB'ing ? or just a mere bug... there is nothing wrong with raw file and noting wrong with the light... you can get that in a theater or some similar venues for example.

My story is very plain and simple - 2 DNG files provided - try to get a proper WB (WB patch from XRite passport is in one shot) or build a profile (XRite Passport shot is also supplied in another shot) using Adobe software (ACR/LR and PE)...

I was very amused that Adobe's software can't (won't allow) to work with a good raw data, from shots under a very simple illumination , are you ? I bet you can't read this in that DNG book, can you ?

I am sorry, what my question about 2 DNG files (posted above, you can download both and try to WB or build profile yourself) has to do w/ your heavily green biased JPEG files ?

My story is very plain and simple - 2 DNG files provided - try to get a proper WB (WB patch from XRite passport is in one shot) or build a profile (XRite Passport shot is also supplied in another shot) using Adobe software (ACR/LR and PE)...

I was very amused that Adobe's software can't (won't allow) to work with a good raw data, from shots under a very simple illumination , are you ? I bet you can't read this in that DNG book, can you ?

So you can't explain how I can fix a seriously botched WB in a cooked pixel jpeg?

I'm trying to understand what lack of WB functionality I've never seen anyone throughout the years ACR/LR and digital Raw processing has been in existence have a problem with. I've never had to read a DNG book because I've never had a problem fixing WB in the 1000 or so Raws I've shot and processed in ACR. And I've never had a problem fixing WB with jpegs and tiffs as well.

If you're under the impression that all Raw images WB should be able to be fixed with one click and it's done solution, then I have to assume you and I don't have the same experience processing Raw images. I don't have your problem and I'm pretty sure no one else does either.

And I shoot and process under the crappiest lights in existence with the green image I linked to being the worst but it took more than a one click and it's fixed WB solution as it did with the 1000 or so Raw's I've processed. I really don't even rely anymore on a neutral reference to click for WB because it doesn't give the desired results creatively speaking.

You've set up a situation that requires a complicated technical answer the majority of photographers don't have a problem with nor do they understand so I'll just take your word for it and agree with you that Adobe software fails to neutrally WB a rosco #002 filtered light source lit scene using a one click X-rite neutral reference target.

I can't explain why it does this because I don't understand the complexity behind it and don't use Rosco filters.

I suggest you use the SilkyPix software which I have a copy of that came with my Pentax K100D and NEVER use BTW because it's a very uncomfortable piece of software to edit Raws even after upgrading to the latest version for the Mac. The main thing I don't like about it is its interface and preview zoom function. It's unbearable.

I'll take the Adobe WB fail that you've pointed out very thoroughly any day over using SilkyPix.

If you're under the impression that all Raw images WB should be able to be fixed with one click and it's done solution, then I have to assume you and I don't have the same experience processing Raw images.

And I shoot and process under the crappiest lights in existence with the green image I linked to being the worst but it took more than a one click and it's fixed WB solution as it did with the 1000 or so Raw's I've processed. I really don't even rely anymore on a neutral reference to click for WB because it doesn't give the desired results creatively speaking.

so please tell me how to build a profile and WB the DNG files that were posted... instead of filling the thread w/ non relevant mumbling.

You've set up a situation that requires a complicated technical answer the majority of photographers don't have a problem with nor do they understand so I'll just take your word for it and agree with you that Adobe software fails to neutrally WB a rosco #002 filtered light source lit scene using a one click X-rite neutral reference target.

and my posting was not addressed to the majority, why did you even think about that ?... but to the few who can understand and tell me what happened

1) Adobe knows better what do we need and this is not something that we need (what a heresy to have a raw file with all 4 channels exposed/saturated quite good... no, real photographers always have a good deal of underexposure in at least 2 channels or else !)

2) Adobe can't do this because their processing model can't work with such cases (hard to believe in that)

3) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will be fixed

4) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will not be fixed, because N1

and my posting was not addressed to the majority, why did you even think about that ?... but to the few who can understand and tell me what happened

1) Adobe knows better what do we need and this is not something that we need (what a heresy to have a raw file with all 4 channels exposed/saturated quite good... no, real photographers always have a good deal of underexposure in at least 2 channels or else !)

2) Adobe can't do this because their processing model can't work with such cases (hard to believe in that)

3) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will be fixed

4) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will not be fixed, because N1

Hi,

I do agree that it is odd that ACR seriously fails to do a 'simple' WB where other converters (I just tried Capture One Pro V7 which had little problem rendering somewhat pleasing colors), although the Rosco did alter the illuminant's spectrum into something that doesn't look like a normal blackbody emission, and relative scene-color distances are significantly altered in the captured data (which is the function of a filter).

Color rendering, even after a 'successful' WB, will still suffer from an unbalanced scene illumination. Whether, and how reliable, a custom profile will be, remains to be seen (depends also on Bayer CFA characteristics and scene colors). What I don't completely follow is why one would butcher the illumination and then attempt to correct that with a profile, unless that illumination 'quality' is encountered commonly, and a post-capture fix is the only remedy possible (I'd prefer to do it pre-capture if color accuracy is that important).

Our sensors with their tri-chromatic color filtering already create potential Color Inconstancy and Metamerism issues, so why throw another spanner in the works?

What I don't completely follow is why one would butcher the illumination

butcher ? I have enough light to saturate all raw channels sufficiently - where is any butchering exactly in a raw histogram posted ? ... and then a normal raw converter shall allow me to WB that as I want...

butcher ? I have enough light to saturate all raw channels sufficiently - where is any butchering exactly in a raw histogram posted ? ... and then a normal raw converter shall allow me to WB that as I want...

Hi,

Enough signal in the different channels is not the issue with metameric color issues. It's the seemingly disrupted contributions between the Bayer filters that will cause potential issues, hence the 'butchering'. But that's probably not your original issue, because I presume that the CC pigments are chosen for their insensitivity to metamerism, and other converters do better (with a significant tint and temperature adjustment) than ACR.

Quote

I see only a raw converter (some of them) issue... gel used will not create any additional metamerism beyond what was already present w/o it.

Only for well chosen combinations of illumination and pigments. Our digital camera sensors are not spectrophotometers, but rather tri-chromatic sampling devices, so color inconstancy and metamerism is always a potential issue when pigments are not chosen carefully. Again, this is unlikely to be the issue with the CC profiling with a tri-chromatic sampling device here, because other Raw converters do a better job.

But even with Capture One Pro V7 (example attached), while the overall color balance is more acceptable, it is not perfect (because the light quality was compromised with a Magenta/Pink filter which changed the demosaicing balance between color bands for specific colors, especially those crossing CFA filter band boundaries).

I find it a strange coincidence that these Rosco filters are getting mentioned several times between two photo discussion forums within the last month namely at LuLa and Photo.net when I've never heard of the brand for the ten years I've participated in both forums.

In fact there's a discussion over at Photo.net started by a long time member in the Lighting forum having issues with Rosco's pinkish blue tint to neutrals which I pointed out to the OP.

A while back in another topic discussing gels/filters someone posted the video which was the first I heard of this brand. I'm not a long standing pro photographer going back to the film days (right now just a digital imaging enthusiast), so if Rosco says they've been around 100 years according to that video, I'll just take their word for it.